Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Universal Pictures films (1980–1989)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Daniel (talk) 18:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Universal Pictures films (1980–1989)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:NLIST / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 16:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It appears that there's a list of Universal studios films for every decade they've being in existence for, this list is well sourced and imo, is notable BFC Aspie (talk) 17:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes. Obviously a split of Lists of Universal Pictures films. No particular issue with those lists.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are many sources on the history and films of Universal Pictures, see City of Dreams: The Making and Remaking of Universal Pictures, Universal Pictures: A Panoramic History in Words, Pictures, and Filmographies, The Cochrane Brothers And the Making of Universal Pictures, The Universal Story, and more. The current state of sourcing in the article is not relevant for notability; that can be fixed by editing. Keep per WP:NEXIST. Toughpigs (talk) 16:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One-sourced article and better covered by Category:Universal Pictures films and 'films by year' and films by year' genre cats. Nomination is pretty clear to build consensus for future deletions of 'list of studio's film by decade' articles, which are all covered and duplicated by each "(year) in (nation) film" articles that have much better sourcing and don't have to deal with 'studio stan' editors. Any article within reason can be nominated for deletion at any time. Nate • (chatter) 23:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No, nominating just one page in what's clearly a set is bad form, and if they want future deletions to succeed, maybe they should get one to work before nominating several at once. This is organized by release date and is far more useful than massive alphabetical categories. I don't think 'studio stan' editors are an issue with straightforward list like this. Reywas92^Talk 15:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as valid split from main article. Are references really needed for a blue-linked list? If so there is the book "The Universal Story" by Clive Hirschorn which includes yearly summaries of the studio's output and secondary reviews of the films that includes this time period, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a valid list article. All information can be found in the articles linked to. If you want to copy the references over for some reason you can, but its not needed for list. Dream Focus 13:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Articles of this kind are a helpful resource for film historians. What good is there in removing them? This is the most ridiculous entry in the "Candidates for Deletion" roster since all those home video articles got removed. That Article Editing Guy (talk) 01:59, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.